Truths suppressed by the Establishment and society generally, and analytical overviews of reality to deepen understanding. All contents copyrighted. Brief quotations with attribution and URL [jasonzenith.blogspot.com] permitted.
Check out my other blog at taboo-truths.blogspot.com

Friday, March 21, 2014

A mentally ill, homeless U.S. Marine
Corp veteran, Jerome
Murdough, was arrested for trespassing when
he was found sleeping in a stairwell in a housing project.
Bail of $2,800 was imposed. Then he was put in a cell in the city's
massive prison complex on Rikers Island. The temperature in his cell
exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit, (38 degrees Celsius),
killing him. He was 56 years old.

Sounds like a story out of some Third
World hellhole. No, this is the U.S. Welcome to the real America.

There's so much wrong here- where to
begin?

Let's start with arresting someone for
the “crime” of being homeless. You would think the police could
have told him to move on. Or taken him to a homeless shelter, or
arranged that. Or, if he didn't respond in a way they considered
rational, take him to a city hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

No, they arrest him. Now, a question
that isn't answered- or even asked- is why set bail for
trespassing? And an exorbitant amount that a destitute
homeless man obviously doesn't have? His “case” wouldn't have
been resolved for months. So in effect some vicious judge sentenced
him, pretrial, to months in jail for allegedly sleeping in a
stairwell. No information on this in the local media, except a
passing mention of the bail amount.[1]

Next,- Why would the prison
“authorities” allow there to be life-threatening
conditions in a cell? How long was it like that? Surely some inmate
would have complained. But you can guess the indifference and
contempt with which prisoner complaints are met by their jailers. (If
you've been in jail, you don't have to guess.) I suspect this was a
“punishment” cell deliberately overheated (other punishment cells
are freezing cold, a torture technique used by the CIA, U.S.
military, and by the Border Patrol). What, you thought merely being
imprisoned was punishment enough? You must be one of those bleeding
heart soft-on-crime liberals!

The “authorities” have rushed to
claim that the “condition” has been “fixed”- they claim a
defect in the heating system. (!) Initially they cast blame on their
victim, saying he failed to open a vent in the cell. (Yeah, I'm sure
that would have helped a LOT. A cool sea breeze would've
magically found its way into the bowels of the prison and wafted
into the cell, reducing the temperature to a comfortable 70 degrees
F, right?)

The only thing the local media is
focused on is the “question” of why the guards didn't check on
him more often in the sweatbox cell! This is to be “investigated”
by the prison bosses. The establishment is keeping the focus
microscopically on this one issue.

Oh by the way, the victim was black.
Sort of predictable, that one. Not that “white” people are never
killed by the system- if they're poor. It's just a lot more dangerous
to be “black.” But this tawdry killing will soon be forgotten. So
far, the new mayor, the “progressive” Bill deBlasio, has been
silent. He has jumped into the media spotlight whenever it's
snowed, however- important stuff like that. [2]

The propaganda system and those
wielding government power probably won't draw any useful conclusions
from this case of their criminally negligent homicide. (They already
have a rule that the guards were supposed to monitor mentally ill
prisoners. Maybe they could enact a new rule saying prisoners can't
be cooked above 98 degrees, say.) But we can draw useful conclusions.
They of course see it as a temporary public relations problem, to be
smoothed over. It will be forgotten in days. The family will sue, and
get some taxpayer money. Allowing this avenue of “redress” in
such matters ensures there won't be a militant response of
resistance- they don't want another Black Panther Party arising,
after all. And they can keep people faith in “the system.” [3]
Other than buying off the
family, at
most, a guard might be reprimanded for inattention. The police, the
judge, the prosecutor's office- they aren't even mentioned so far by
the media.

We should see three obvious conclusions
here. First, U.S. society is cruel. No, one incident doesn't prove
that. But this is one of millions of examples of gratuitous cruelty,
piled up over the years. Many, like this one, end up in death. The
specific cruelties here are indifference to providing care for the
mentally ill, who if they don't have financial means or families who
can provide for care, are left to their own devices, and draconian
punishment for any poor person who gets out of line to even the
slightest degree. (His slumbering body was where it wasn't allowed to
be.)

Second, there's a generalized hostility
to the poor. The mentality of those in power, and of their muscle
that enforces their will, the police, is to see the poor as enemies,
a source of potential resistance, rebellion, trouble. The U.S. has
gotten increasingly oppressive since 1980, and one way this is
manifested is in more and more repressive laws, the brunt of which
fall on the poor. And the power of the police and prosecutors has
been increased at the same time.

Third, this was a veteran. Once his
usefulness as cannon fodder for the empire was over, he was discarded
by the system like so much human waste. Once again the foolishness of
joining (or submitting to being conscripted into) the U.S. armed
forces is underlined. Loyalty is a one-way street with those in
power. Exhibits for this thesis include: the abuse suffered by the
Gulf War Syndrome vets, who were called malingers and fakers and gold
diggers; the long battle Vietnam vets suffering from the effects of
Agent Orange had to wage to get a bit of recognition that they
actually were sick, and it was from Agent Orange (of course their
offspring have to live with birth defects too, don't forget- and
don't even ask about the Vietnamese!); the contempt and abuse heaped
on soldiers mentally damaged by combat; and the fate of the World War
I “bonus marchers,” who in the midst of the Great Depression,
marched on Washington to demand payment of a promised war bonus,
which they really needed at that time, but instead of paying up, the
government sent in the Army to forcibly disperse them. This task was
carried out by a new crop of soldiers, commanded by Douglas MacArthur
and his aide, Dwight Eisenhower. (This based on the principle
enunciated by one of the most notorious of the robber barons, Jay
Gould, who quipped, “I can always hire half the working class to
kill the other half.”)

After all this, and more, you'd think
people would be wised up about the U.S. military. This is the great
advantage to the rulers of never teaching people true history- there
are new suckers born daily who can be duped. (By the way, they often
cheat their dupes out of promised benefits, such as college tuition,
and discharge the wounded on spurious grounds to deny them medical
care. They've got a thousand tricks to evade their responsibilities
and double-cross the credulous cannon fodder. Even the establishment
media has run stories on such mistreatment of veterans- some of the
propagandists are smart enough to know that this mistreatment is
potentially a dangerous practice. Eventually they may not be able to
dupe enough suckers into fighting their wars for them. People might
actually stop volunteering for “service” if word gets around.
Hence the media applies a bit of pressure on the government with
infrequent reporting.) The only valid reason for joining the U.S.
military is get obtain military training and steal weapons.

The utter hypocrisy and cynicism of all
the “honor our vets” hoopla is exposed again as a cynical sham.
The nationalism card is played to induce fools to fight for the power
elite and enforce U.S. diktat around the world, in the name of
“defending our country,” a ludicrously absurd claim on its face
when set against the facts. U.S. power is as far from defensive as
one can get, except in the sense that American imperialists are
“defending” their global dominance. But they are actually doing
even more than that. They are constantly driving for global hegemony,
as their brazen grab for the Ukraine throws into stark relief. (Did
they actually believe the Russians would just passively let
themselves be pushed out of their key strategic naval base on the
Black Sea, located in Crimea? Truly they are drunk on power.)

Just one more thing about the homeless
man killed for trespassing. Last Sunday a teenager was arrested for
trespassing in the replacement tower on the site of destroyed World
Trade Center. He made it upstairs to take pictures. This put “the
authorities” in a tizzy because of the sensitivity of the site. The
episode made headlines in media across the U.S. and even abroad (such
as the Guardian UK). Charged with two misdemeanors, he was released
on his own recognizance- no bail.

1] Some local judges have been
demonized by the NYC media when they were considered insufficiently
punitive or released people on bail. No such high dudgeon about this-
the judge hasn't been named or even mentioned. As for the cops, who
were no doubt trying to make their monthly arrest quotas, they could
have released him from the precinct after arresting him with a Desk
Appearance Ticket, which orders the “perp” (cop talk for
perpetrator, embedding the assumption that you “did it,” whatever
they accused you of), to appear in court on a certain date. This is
an option for minor “crimes,” at the discretion of the police in
NYC. Instead he was “put into the system,” held, taken to court,
where the prosecutor could have dropped the charges then and there,
and the judge could have freed him “on his own recognizance”
(without bail) and a return court date set.

Some people have been imprisoned for a
year or more on Rikers awaiting trial. This is one way the local
District Attorney's office (the criminal prosecutors) pressure people
to plead guilty.

Housing projects are groups of multiple
large apartment buildings where poor people are concentrated. New
York City has a number of these projects. Increasingly they are run
like quasi-prisons. The NYPD (NYC police department) has had a policy
under the 12 year reign of Mayor Michael Bloomberg Billionaire of
arresting visitors and even residents of these projects for
“trespassing,” even when they had IDs proving they lived there.
Finally, after numerous such bogus arrests over a period of years, a
class action lawsuit was brought against the police and city
government.

2] DeBlasio replaced
Michael Bloomberg Billionaire in January, following the November 2013
local elections. Bloomberg, bored with the job, declined to grab a
fourth term, which would have necessitated gutting yet again the city
term limit law, passed twice by popular referendum, as he had to do
when he ran for a third term.

3] There is a
“New Black Panther Party,” apparently a project of the Nation of
Islam, but they don't confront police or carry guns, and don't seem
to be drawing members. It acts more like a theatrical project than a
political one. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale were inspired to create
the first BPP to stop the rampant police brutality against blacks.
It's original name was the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.
Notorious racist J. Edgar Hoover recognized the “threat” it
posed, and using his command of the national political police, the
FBI, moved to violently destroy it.

Nowadays the police are still free to
kill blacks, as long as they don't kill too many, or too often. That
includes “liberal” New York City too, where city police on
“narcotics” duty recently followed a young black man, Ramarley
Graham, on the street, broke into his apartment building, smashed
down the door into his family home, and shot him dead on the floor of
his bathroom, apparently to stop him from flushing marijuana down the
toilet. He was unarmed. No, they don't need a warrant to do that-
they did it, didn't they? So obviously they don't need no stinking
warrant. But the resulting outburst of public anger, and coverage by
“alternative” (non-establishment) media, eventually forced the
system to indict the killer cop for manslaughter. Of course the
police union is solidly behind the killer. The outcome is pending,
while the system kicks the can down the road. They have an unenviable
choice of alienating their hired muscle that protects their power
structure, or reinflaming that part of the public that identifies
with the victim (“blacks”) or that has a sense of justice (people
with a normal moral sense), and eroding a bit more of the legitimacy
of their system. Legitimacy meaning people's acceptance of their
system and willingness to submit to it and obey its rules.

Calibrating the correct level of
oppression is delicate for them. Too much, and they risk resistance,
even rebellion. Too little, and they risk having their captive
populace escape their control.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Well, as expected, the residents of
Crimea voted to break away from Ukraine (now ruled by a mob-installed
and foreign-controlled government) and become an independent nation,
presumably in advance of rejoining Russia, which it was part of from
the 1700s until around 1954. The U.S. and its European helpmates
dutifully denounced the referendum yet again as “illegitimate”
and “illegal” and contrary to the Ukraine Constitution (they
apparently consider the mob overthrow of the previous elected
president of Ukraine, and the choosing of the new “leader” of
Ukraine by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, as
Constitutional) and announced their refusal to recognize it. [1]

Obama has ordered the assets of top
Putin aides frozen, and those of members of the Duma (Russian
Parliament), and of Ukrainians who spoke in favor of secession, as
punishment for their actions and advocacy. The U.S. can do this since
it controls the world financial system. [2]

Since it doesn't control the
world financial system, Russia can't freeze the assets of John Kerry,
or Victoria Nuland, or John McCain, for destabilizing the elected
government of Ukraine and replacing it with people more to their
liking, and for stirring up opposition in Kiev to self-determination
for Ukrainians who didn't support the mob coup.

Much has been made of the Tatars,
indeed they've received more attention in Western media than the rest
of the Crimean population. By the way, the Tatars are 12% of
Crimeans, according to that same media (a fact deeply buried in long
articles). We're reminded over and over that Stalin deported the
Tatars during World War II. Not mentioned much is that this was
because 9,000 Tatars joined the Nazi invaders to fight with them in
the attempt to destroy the Soviet Union. (In fact, if the Germans had
won, the Tatars probably would have ended up being exterminated, as
Hitler's plan was to murder three fourths of the “subhuman Slav”
population of the S.U. upon victory. I doubt if he held Tatars in
high regard.) After the war, the Tatars were allowed to return.
Whether or not this mass deportation was prudent and justified during
a nation's struggle for its very survival or an unacceptable
violation of human rights is something that can be debated. [3]

By the way, the Tatars weren't the only
population internally exiled during that war. The Japanese-Americans
of the U.S. west coast were forcibly deported to internal
concentration camps, lined with barbed wire and guarded by watch
towers with machine guns. They lost all their property, for which
they were never compensated. The number of Japanese-Americans who
joined the Japanese armed forces after Pearl Harbor totals, as far as
I know, ZERO.

The words “self-determination” are
taboo in Western media discussion of the “crisis.” Instead we're
told Russia “invaded” Crimea and is “annexing” it. Yet the
contradictions are visible even in the Western media. For example,
the New York Times has reported on crowds of thousands of Crimeans-
and in other parts of Ukraine- waving Russian flags and chanting
“Putin” and Russia.” I don't think Russia imported thousands of
Russians from Russia and disguised them as pro-Russian Ukrainians. (But the leaders of the militias are Russian veterans from Russia.)

By the way, I can recall the U.S.
dividing Vietnam in half and setting up a fascist dictatorship in a
new “country” it called “South Vietnam.” And invading Grenada
to overthrow the government there. And waging a decade-long terror
and sabotage campaign against Nicaragua to destabilize the government
there. And a three year campaign, including terrorism and the
assassination of the Chilean Army chief of staff in 1970, to
overthrow that government in 1973. And supporting in practice (and
funding to the tune of billions of dollars in free military weaponry
a year) Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the best parts of
the West Bank. And numerous other examples of, let us say,
“interference.” Hell, the U.S. “redrew” its border with
Mexico to take a third of Mexico and make it part of the U.S., by
force, not by referendum of the inhabitants.

Meanwhile, people in the U.S. who try
to comment rationally and objectively on the “crisis” are smeared
as parroting “Russian propaganda.” An asshole from the “Peterson
Institute for International Economics,” in particular gleefully
hurls this insult at people who cite facts he has no refutation for.

And before the referendum was even
held, a propagandist on The Daily Beast website inoculated people
against thinking the vote could possibly be legitimate by saying
anyone voting in favor was either brainwashed by Russian propaganda
(the Russians have had like a whole week to “brainwash” people-
plenty of time to turn people into zombies, right?) or terrorized by
Russian guns. Neither assertion has any relation to reality- as is
clear from the Western reporters in the Crimea, who have done
their best to skew the picture in the desired anti-Russian and
anti-secession direction. But what makes the jobs of propagandists so
easy is their total detachment from facts. They can just make stuff
up- so much easier than having to study things, think
seriously, and make sober judgments! And they get paid!

Which brings me to another- no, not
hypocrisy, flat out psychological projection and the most cynical
inversion of reality: propagandists from places like the
“Peterson Institute for International Economics” (a reactionary
factory of propaganda for greed) and the “Atlantic
Council” calling serious scholars like Stephen Cohen and others
“Russian propagandists” or “a shill for the Russian
Government.”

We're also being subjected to official
screeches that the Russians have violated the understandings of 1991!
Excuse me, the understanding was that the U.S. bloc wouldn't advance
right up to Russia's border. And
various establishment politicians and polemicists keep accusing
Russia of bringing back the Cold War. What is so like the Cold War is NATO pressing right up to Russia's borders, like Reagan did when the U.S.
threatened the Soviet Union with a first strike nuclear attack. Given
the history of European invasions of Russia (Napoleon, the Kaiser, 22
Western powers that invaded on the side of the White Russians against
the Bolsheviks, Poland at various times, and Hitler), why wouldn't
Russia (or any nation) want a buffer zone around itself? (We only
ever hear about Soviet conquests, which are part of history of
course. But deliberately excising half of history is the mark of
propaganda.)

I think there's no question about two
things: 1) the U.S. created the situation that led to secession by
overthrowing the Ukrainian government and installing a puppet regime,
and 2) the people in Crimea (and perhaps most of eastern Ukraine)
want to join Russia, as they were deeply shaken by events in Kiev,
including a new law delegitimizing the Russian language, which is the
native tongue of many eastern Ukrainians. Indeed, most of the
Crimeans are of Russian extraction. (The new boss in Kiev scotched
the anti-Russian law after the new, reactionary-dominated legislature
passed it, probably on U.S. instructions.) The U.S. wants the
pro-Russian Ukrainians to live under repressive rule of its puppet
government in Kiev, backed up by violent fascists who are now inside
the government with their hands on key levers of power- police and
prosecutor's office, for example.

As U.S. politicians run around
denouncing Russian “aggression” and Putin as the second coming of
Hitler (Hillary Clinton did as much, invoking the Nazi takeover of
Czechoslovakia- if I remember, the Nazis didn't ask the Czechs if
they wanted to be invaded, and didn't hold a referendum on that), the
U.S. still expects Russia to be a “good partner” in bludgeoning
Iran into surrendering its right to enrich uranium (which the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran signed says they have a right to do)
and in other ways to be the U.S.' helpmate. This is the definition of
being “a responsible member of the international community,”
doing the U.S.' bidding.

So the U.S. thought Russia would just
roll over and play dead as the U.S. moved to shove them out of their
strategic Black Sea naval base. And it expects Russia to keep serving
U.S. interests, such as in demanding that Iran wipe out its own nuclear research and uranium enrichment program. (By the way, the U.S. needs Russian cooperation as it
evacuates its expeditionary force from Afghanistan. But don't expect gratitude, Russia. The U.S. takes it for granted that all other nations should serve U.S. interests. That's just the natural order of things. Refusing or failing to do so is a violation of the natural order.) This kind of
extreme arrogance that blinds one to the obvious and predictable
reactions of others to one's own aggressiveness and trampling on
their vital interests, is a lot more reminiscent of the Nazis than
anything Russia is currently is doing.

1] Regions seceding from larger
political entities is a fairly common occurrence historically.
Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan, West Virginia broke away from
Virginia, when Virginia and the other southern states seceded from
the U.S. to form the Confederate States of America. The U.S. and EU
didn't object to Yugoslavia breaking up into several states, nor to
Czechoslovakia dividing into two separate nations- both in the last
couple of decades. And the U.S. pushed for the secession of South Sudan from Sudan and midwifed that breakup process.

Why it's considered absolutely essential that "Ukraine" continue to maintain it's current borders, and absolutely no changes must be allowed, nor formal political divisions created that reflect the real political divisions of the people there, is a mystery. Oh wait, not it isn't. The U.S. wants to swallow the whole
thing, THAT's the reason.

2] The EU is punishing
21 people, both Russians and Ukrainians, for supporting the holding
of the referendum, with asset freezes and visa denials. And Obama has
slapped sanctions on the overthrow, elected Ukrainian president for
good measure.

3] The Tatars boycotted
the referendum. Knowing they were going to lose, they can now
denounce it as “phony” and “fixed.” (These words were being
slung around even before the vote.) I wonder how much of this is on
the advice of U.S. operatives.

As for their joining the Nazi invaders,
at least initially, no doubt they were motivated by the delusion that
the racist self-styled “supermen” would liberate them from
Stalin's awful tyranny. The truth is they were caught between a rock
and a hard place, or they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire,
if you prefer. So I would not be too quick to morally judge their
choice- nor the decision to deport their brethren. Reality can impose
hard choices on people.

“And
the tragedy that you referenced of tens of thousands of children who
have dysentery and cholera, a million displaced, 10,000 dead, it
seems that here we are sitting in Washington and listeners sitting
around the country, it's hard to imagine.” -Yochi
Dreazen of Foreign
Policy magazine,
speaking of Syria, on the Diane Rehm show, 3/14/14. [1]

Well
pal, it shouldn't be so "hard" for you to "imagine." You guys killed 500,000 Iraqi children during the Clinton regime's
sanctions on Iraq in a failed attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein by
starving the populace there. That wasn't so long ago that you should
have forgotten it already,

This
isn't even disputed by Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, who didn't deny it, didn't flinch, didn't apologize, when
asked about it by Leslie Stahl during a 60 Minutes interview (CBS).
Albright said “we think it was worth it.” What the “it'” was
that was worth half a million children's lives, that is, what was
accomplished, Albright didn't say, and Stahl didn't ask.

Here's
iceberg-hearted Albright unperturbed by helping kill half a million
children. And it won't do it blame it on Saddam Hussein. The U.S.
can't wash its hands of the crime by putting all the blame on that
cruel tyrant. Bill Richardson, another Clinton regime apparatchik and governor, also endorses this deliberate mass murder. We all know what the reaction would be to the sight of a Soviet or Nazi official coolly brushing aside the deliberate killing of half a million children in the alleged pursuit of some policy goal. (The fatuous Richardson defends the policy by saying "it was the policy," and claiming it "contained" Saddam Hussein. As if that was necessary to "contain" him.

But
Albright got the usual reward for apparatchiks of her rank- made
members of the U.S. nomenklatura. She's rich, she got paid far
more for her book than its market value, she's paid handsomely to
give talks on such topics as “The Art of Leadership,” and Obama
gave her the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the U.S. equivalent of
the Soviet Order of Lenin and the highest U.S. civilian medal). [2]

By
the way, this is a good opportunity to recall that the U.S. and its
Eurolackeys supported the murderous tyrant Hussein wholeheartedly
for all the years of his career UNTIL he invaded Kuwait. They
supported his war of aggression against Iran, supplying him with
location information on Iranian troops so he could GAS them. They
covered for his gassing of the Iraqi Kurds
during the war, even putting out a false “intelligence report” by
the Pentagon's “Defense” “Intelligence” Agency asserting that
IRAN had gassed those villages. (Notice
they never mention that these days. Down the memory hole!)

The
West sold Hussein the precursor chemicals used to make the gas.
Earlier in his career, the CIA helpfully provided him with names of
communists so he could round them up and exterminate them. (The CIA's
attitude towards communists is exactly the same as the Nazis
attitudes towards Jews: they are subhuman vermin to be exterminated
wherever they can be found. And the fascist CIA has a very loose
definition of who is a “communist.” Could be a Jesuit priest, a
left-wing activist, a labor organizer, a Marxist intellectual, a
human rights lawyer- anyone interfering with a reactionary social
order backed by U.S. power, covertly or overtly.)

And
why did the corporate media refer to him as “Saddam”? That was
his first
name, and they hated him by then. Perhaps to avoid confusing him with
U.S. lapdog “King” Hussein of Jordan? (Now deceased and succeeded
by his spawn, “King” Abdullah, who like his daddy took an
American woman as a bride- to show his loyalty to his masters, I
suppose- who is now a “Queen,” as is his mother.)

1]
The
Diane Rehm show comes out of Washington, D.C., the capital city of
the empire. It's carried on the government radio propaganda network
NPR five days a week. Guests are typically from “elite” U.S. and
European media. The thought processes of the hosts and guests are
enclosed inside the ideological
bubble
of the
media and political elite of that city, referred to by themselves as
“inside the Beltway,” with only vague self-awareness.

Here's
a typical example of the ideological mind-bubble in which these
people operate. When now and then, someone on the show refers to U.S.
torture, they never say “torture.” It's always the euphemism
“harsh interrogation tactics.”

And
there's all the other standard euphemisms and ideological and
political assumptions. U.S. aggression is “defense.” U.S. power
is “national security.” U.S. repression is “security” or “law
enforcement.” Secret police agencies like the FBI and CIA are “law
enforcement” or “intelligence” agencies. The U.S. is always
good, everything it does has virtuous aims, and its opponents are
malign or evil. Any doubt about official cover stories are crackpot
“conspiracy theories.” Any political options outside the
two-party dictatorship of the Democrats and Republicans is literally
unthinkable. All economic analysis stays within the mystified realm
of doctrinal economic dogma.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

In George Orwell's famous classic of totalitarianism, 1984, the ruling dictatorship had its own vocabulary, called Newspeak, which basically meant inverting words to mean the opposite of their previous meanings. For example, Slavery is Freedom.

Barack Obama and his minions have shown themselves to be assiduous disciples of the principle of Newspeak; to invert the meanings of words. Examples are legion: here are two recent ones I happened to notice.

In Ukraine, a violent mob overthrew the elected government, and the U.S. installed replacement “leaders.” These people Obama refers to as “democratic leaders.” Unelected, yet somehow “democratic.” Capitalists better no longer sneer at Bolshevik misuse of the word “democratic.” [1]

Another recent example is Obama's secret police henchman John Brennan. Obama wanted Brennan to replace Democratic Party apparatchik Leon Panetta as CIA head a few years back, but Brennan's involvement in CIA torture programs scuttled that back then. So Brennan was brought to Obama's side to run Obama's drone assassination program for him. So beloved by Obama is Brennan, that Obama last year once again moved to install Brennan at the top of the CIA, and this time he succeeded.

Brennan, as you'd expect of a career secret police type like him, can barely open his mouth without lying. But he has a habitual phrase whenever he utters a real howler. It's “Nothing could be further from the truth.” So during his Senate confirmation hearings for CIA Director, in denying that the drone death program ever harmed a hair on an innocent person's head, he used the phrase. [2]

Now that he was caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers and stealing documents off their CIA-provided computers, he once again denies what is proven fact with the phrase “Nothing could be further from the truth.

You can be guaranteed that if John Brennan says of something that “Nothing could be further from the truth,” it's true. It's like a tell in a poker player, a dead giveaway.

“Ukraine.” Can mean the actual
country. Often it means the satraps the U.S. installed in power inKiev. As in “Ukraine asked for Western help against the
Russian invasion [sic],” or, “the American government supports
Ukraine.”

“International law.” The rules
the U.S. insists on imposing, which boil down to, the U.S. does
whatever it wants, and other nations do what the U.S. wants. If the
U.S. does it, it's legal. So arranging the overthrow of the elected
Ukrainian government by a neo-Nazi led mob and installing people in
power handpicked by the U.S. State Department is perfectly legal,
whereas Russia protecting its naval base in the Crimea and letting
people vote in a referendum to choose to secede from western Ukraine
or not is “a violation of international law.” And of the
Ukrainian Constitution, too, which apparently has a provision
allowing for neo-Nazi hoodlums to overthrow the government and its
replacement by U.S.-approved puppets.

“The international community.” All
the lackey and stooge nations that line up behind the U.S.

“The
rights of all the Ukrainian people.” The U.S. decrees
there shall be no partition and the entirely of Ukraine shall
henceforth be in the U.S. domain. Self-determination for the populace
of eastern Ukraine is not allowed. Controlled elections next year
will ratify U.S. and neo-Nazi dominance of Ukraine.

“The territorial
integrity of Ukraine.” No self-determination by the people of
eastern Ukraine shall be allowed. A secession referendum is
intolerable to the U.S. bloc, aka “the West.”

Friday, March 14, 2014

In an interview with the consistently
reactionary NPR radio host Scott Simon on March 1st,
former prominent U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering raised the
possibility of bottling up the Russian Black Sea Fleet inside the
Black Sea, presumably with the cooperation of NATO member and U.S.
client Turkey, through whose territory the narrow Dardanelles straits
passes. The Dardanelles are the only exit from the Black Sea, leading
to the Mediterranean Sea. [1]

After invoking the Cuban missile crisis
(a crisis of the U.S.' creation) and the U.S. military alert during
the Yom Kippur War, Pickering suggests blockading the Russian fleet
based in Crimea. After suggesting this “tougher step” as a
possibility “to reinforce diplomacy,” he then claims “no one
wants to see a military confrontation” and “no one that I know of
now, is threatening the stability or indeed security of the Black Sea
Fleet...” Well take a look in the mirror and you'll see someone who
just did, pal. Although he did say one has to be “very
careful” about such a move. And presumably only if “diplomacy”
doesn't force the Russians to give in to U.S. diktat.
“Diplomacy” includes every kind of pressure and punishment short
of military force. And Pickering mentions some of them.

Other than Pickering, however, I
haven't heard any other imperialist apparatchiks, active or
“retired,” suggest a naval blockade. Nor am I aware of any
politicians or media figures explicitly suggesting it, although
probably one of Murdoch's minions or their “guests” have, given
their chronic bellicosity. Nevertheless, Pickering has put the threat
out there, and Ukraine's U.S.-installed puppet “prime minister”
has been running around shrilly exhorting the U.S. and EU to push
Russia out of Crimea. He even went to the Emperor's official lair,
the White House; whether on his own desperate initiative or because
the Emperor summoned him, I don't know.

One problem Pickering noted was the
dependency of Europe and Ukraine on Russian natural gas. He invoked
Russia's past attempt to raise gas prices (to something closer to the
market value- Ukraine was getting gas dirt cheap from Russia, and
still today pays below fair market value- a fact very rarely mentions
by U.S. media and establishment apparatchiks, and Pickering, let us
say, “forgot” to mention that, thus painting Russia as
extortionist) and elides the fact that Ukraine stole gas transiting
through its pipelines bound for western Europe. Seems to me if you're
going to mention Russia raising the price, you should mention that
they were selling it at a discount. Since Ukraine at that time was
behaving in a hostile manner towards Russia, no surprise that Russia
would say, “You know, we're selling you gas at way below market
price- we want more now.” Instead what western elites do is distort
reality by painting a picture of Russian “extortion.” And who
knows? Maybe they've brainwashed themselves into believing their own
propaganda.

Pickering also spews the standard
blather about “fair treatment to all Ukrainian citizens,” which
is boilerplace U.S. rhetoric. What he really means is “it's unfair
to divide Ukraine,” because the U.S. wants it ALL.

If you want to hear the interview with
this imperialist poohbah, or read the transcript, here's the link to npr.org.

1] NPR is the U.S.
government-created and Congressionally-controlled domestic
propaganda radio network.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

American Emperor Barack Obama made this
public statement on March 6th:

“The proposed, referendum, on
the future of Crimea, would violate the Ukrainian Constitution, and,
violate international law. Any discussion about the future of
Ukraine must include the
legitimate government, of Ukraine. In two thousand fourteen we
are well beyond the days when, borders can be redrawn over the
heads, of, democratic leaders. While we, take these steps [sanctions
on Russia] I wanna be clear that there's also a way to resolvethis crisis, that respects the interests of the Russian
Federation, as well as the Ukrainian people. Let international
monitors, into all of Ukraine, including Crimean, to
ensure the rights of all Ukrainians are being respected, including,
ethnic Russians. Begin consultations,
between the government of Russia and Ukraine, with the
participation, of the international community. Russia would maintain
its basing rights in Crimea, provided that its abides
by its agreements, and respects, Ukraine's, sovereignty and
territorial integrity. And the world should support, the
people of Ukraine as they move, to elections, in May.
That's the path of de-escalation, and Secretary [of State
John] Kerry is engaged in discussions with all of the relevant
parties, including Russia and Ukraine, to pursue that path.
But, if this violation of international law continues,
the resolve of the United States and our allies and the international
community, will remain firm. Meanwhile we've taken steps to
reaffirm our commitment to the security and democracy of our
allies in Eastern Europe, and to support, the people of Ukraine.” [video of Obama at bottom]

Now, it isn't easy to capture Obama's
speaking patterns in a text transcript. His speech is typically (but
not always) jerky, not flowing and smooth, so one must decide how
long a pause between words merits a comma. He has pauses of varying
lengths between words. Also, what words he emphasizes (which I have
italicized) is tricky, since his speech is “cool,” not “hot,”
that is, he mostly lectures like a university professor. So should
the words on which his voice rises in tone be italicized? Sometimes
the second syllable of a word seems emphasized. Anyway, you can watch
and listen to him yourself below.

So let's parse this amazing speechlet.
He really stands reality on its head in a most mendacious fashion.
The chutzpah and hypocrisy would be breathtaking, except that it's
more or less routine for U.S. Emperors.

First, he asserts that the referendum
on secession would violate the Ukrainian Constitution. What, having a
mob overthrow the elected government in Kiev, and then the U.S.
anoint its hand-picked choices as a new “government,” is allowed
under that Constitution? That just takes a lot of smug and arrogant
chutzpah to assert. And I don't know what part of international law
bars a referendum asking people to make a decision on their political
alignment. On the other hand, international law might have something
to say about foreign powers subverting and overthrowing a government
and replacing it with one more to its liking. But the real reason the
U.S. and its lackeys is so hysterically opposed to the referendum is
because they know the majority in eastern Ukraine look set to vote in
favor of it- hence the need to brand it as “illegitimate” and
“illegal” in advance.

Then he refers to this puppet
U.S.-installed “government” as “the legitimate government of
Ukraine.” Not the elected one the U.S. just helped
overthrow. And this new “government” is to have a veto on even
holding a referendum in Crimea, the apparent meaning of his second
sentence. His third sentence absurdly called the U.S.-installed,
unelected puppets “democratic leaders.” I guess if you interpret
“democratic” as code for “U.S.-controlled,” then it makes
sense. The elected leader was overthrown. Most people equate
“democratic” with “chosen by the people.” Which you would
think would require an election. Obama promises a May election
(which was already scheduled before the coup). Given that a
fascist-led mob now wields significant power in Kiev, and just
engineered a unanimous “vote” in the parliament there to endorse
the coup, one is entitled to wonder how free and fair- and
legitimately contested- the May election will be. After all, the mob
now deemed “the legitimate Ukrainian government” by the U.S. and
its lackeys couldn't even wait until that election to seize power.

As for borders: Obama doesn't have a
problem with Israel redrawing its borders, in blatant
violation of international law, to absorb its conquests of 1967. In
fact the U.S. is paying it to do so, and protecting it, and arming
it, so it can.

Next, feigning reasonableness, Obama
tries to steer Russia down the path of surrender to the U.S. Let
so-called “international monitor” into Crimea (and the rest of
Ukraine, because Obama is SO fair and even-handed, you see) he
demands, “to ensure the rights of all Ukrainians are being
respected.” I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I think
it means “so we can veto secession in the name of the 'Ukrainian
people.'” They're frantically calling the referendum
“illegitimate,” apparently because they think the eastern
Ukrainians will vote to split off from the coup puppet government in
Kiev. Obama and his Eurolackeys just put a cop-killing mob in power
in Kiev. Now he's prattling about “rights.” Obviously all he
cares about is power. This is a guy who picks Americans to
assassinate, who defends his right to imprison American citizens in
military gulags without trial or charges indefinitely, who blows up
wedding parties in other countries, and he wants us to believe he
cares about the rights of Ukrainians? Are there sentient
beings on this planet who still give the slightest credence to such
guff?

Obama references the “crisis,” that
is entirely of his and his Eurolackeys' making, and tells Russia what
it has to do to “resolve” it. Russia has to pretend that the coup
government is legitimate, and beg it to let Russia keep its naval
base in Crimea. We can dismiss the empty rhetoric about “respecting
the rights of all Ukrainians.” A fascist-led mob just overthrew the
elected government and took over Parliament, and the U.S. installed a
client regime. This blather about “respecting the rights of all
Ukrainians” is horseshit. It is the RIGHT of the eastern Ukrainians
to secede from this Western neocolonial creation if they so choose,
just as it was the right of the southern Sudanese to secede (the U.S.
supported that secession), for example, or the right of the Kosovar
Albanians to secede from Serbia (again, with U.S. support). And those
secessions were done by force of arms, not by referendum. (We're
already being brainwashed to think that a Russian gun will be pointed
at every eastern Ukrainian's head to make him or her vote for
secession. The fact that Western propagandists- aka “journalists”-
are freely roaming the Crimea makes me doubt that picture of
repression.)

Then comes some doubletalk, starting
with a demand: “Begin consultations between the government
of Russia and Ukraine, with the participation, of the
international community. Russia would maintain its basing rights in
Crimea, provided that its abides by its agreements, and
respects, Ukraine's, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Now in one sentence he's ordering
Russia to talk to Ukraine. In the next sentence he says Russia
“would” keep its naval “basing rights,” (not “base,” see
the subtle difference?). Well how does Obama magically know in
advance what the outcome of “consultations” between Russia and
the “government of Ukraine” would be? Because it's a puppet
government, and the U.S. said that for now Russia won't be
immediately shoved out of Crimean.

But look at the poison pill Obama
inserted, the conditions for the U.S. to allow Russia to keep
its Black Sea Fleet and access to the worlds seas and oceans from
there: “provided that its abides by its agreements,
and respects, Ukraine's, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
And who will be the judge of that? The U.S., obviously. And given how
distorted the U.S. view of reality is, how could the Russians breath
easy over that? The mere presence of Russian troops in Crimea has
already been denounced, repeatedly, as “a violation of Ukrainian
sovereignty and territorial integrity.” And if the easterners vote
to secede? Why, that would be a “violation of blah blah
blah.” The puppet “prime minister” who Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland told the U.S. ambassador to install, in that
infamous intercepted phone call (that the Western media has
conveniently chucked down the memory hole) has already made noises
about abrogating the base treaty with Russia. The rump parliament
voted to demote the Russian language from having official status in
Ukraine, jamming a thumb in the eye of millions of Russian-speaking
Ukrainians (hey Obama, who exactly is violating whose rights here?)
which the “prime minister” had to hurriedly reverse, no doubt on
U.S. orders.

And let's remember, that this business
of moving NATO right up to the borders of Russia violates the
understanding Gorbachevthought he had with the U.S. when he allowed the Soviet Empire
to collapse peacefully. The U.S. wasn't supposed to push the edge of
its empire right to the Russian border. Now, not only is Russia not
to be permitted any buffer zone at all from Western encroachment, it
is not even to be allowed to maintain its naval base on the Black
Sea, through which it transits to the Mediterranean, the Atlantic
Ocean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. This is
the thanks Russia gets for aiding the U.S. in its war in Afghanistan
(quite a generous gift, considering what the U.S. did to Russia
there!). It doesn't pay to do the U.S. any favors, would seem to be
the lesson. (Iran can draw a similar lesson from the help it extended
to the U.S. after 9/11/01 when the U.S. went to war against the
Taliban. The U.S. is an arrogant ingrate which thinks that all its
demands are merely its due.)

The U.S. basically recognizes only
its own interests as legitimate- and of course Israel's, which are
Super-legitimate, superseding even the U.S.' own.

Obama throws in “the international
community” a few times. Which is just a way of saying “the whole
world against Russia.” The U.S. always uses that rhetoric. It seems
that whichever nation the U.S. is attacking at the moment, it's
always THE WHOLE WORLD against the target nation. Because the U.S. is
so morally righteous and good, of course the WHOLE
WORLD is always behind the U.S. I don't think there's ever been a
nation as arrogant as the U.S. But “the international community”
here really means the EU. Ever since World War II, Europe has been
nothing but a collection of U.S.-flunky nations. We see that again
here, as we have in the “war on terror,” where even Sweden-
Sweden!- helped the CIA kidnap “terrorists” from Swedish soil and
spirit them away to secret torture dungeons. (Some of those torture
dungeons were in Europe too.) And thanks to Edward Snowden, we find
that the European secret police help the NSA spy on the people of
Europe, whose rulers supposedly care somuch about
human rights. Well, pleasing the Master comes first, I suppose.
Politicians aren't really human beings. They are creatures of power.
So they line up with the natural direction of power, like iron
filings in a magnetic field.

Obama ends his peroration with a
hackneyed faux-”stirring” pledge of support for “the
people of Ukraine.” Well, the U.S. certainly supports some
people of Ukraine- namely the new puppets it anointed as the
“legitimate government” of Ukraine. And those satraps can rely on
U.S. support until the U.S. decides not to support them. That happens
sometimes. It happened to Diem in “South” Vietnam, where the U.S.
gave permission for his assassination in a military coup. It happened
to Ferdinand Marcos, dictator of the Philippines. It even happened,
eventually, to the white racist rulers of apartheid South Africa,
even though their regime was not much different from the “Jim Crow”
U.S. South. Sometimes even the most iron-clad U.S. “guarantee”
rusts away. [2]

Now, I don't really care if Russia
keeps its naval base in Crimea. That's Russia's problem. I don't even
believe that the division of humanity into nation-states is
necessarily a good thing. I'm not on Russia's “side” in this. I
simply don't side with this hyper-aggressive, megalomaniacally
arrogant attitude on the part of U.S. imperialists that they should
rule the entire planet. It's like the greed of the megarich. Just as
the thirst of the megarich for more money is unquenchable, so the
lust for more power on the part of the American imperialists can never be satisfied. While the U.S. maintains 750
military bases outside its national borders, an incredible number
which is ignored in the western propaganda media, the U.S. want to
shove Russia out of its historic Black Sea naval base, which is has
maintained for centuries. [1] Crimea was part of Russia, until
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, a native Ukrainian, got it into his
head to redraw the internal borders of the Soviet Union
and transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The
Ukraine then was like a U.S. state, like Texas, a political
subdivision of a nation, not a nation in its own right. Now suddenly
the U.S. says you can't redraw borders. As if borders aren't redrawn
all the time! They're lines on a map! And Russia is not
redrawing the borders, it is giving the eastern Ukrainians the
opportunity to weigh in on whether they want to be dragged against
their will, via a coup, into the arms of the EU (and sooner or later,
of NATO).

The truth is, it's Russia that has been
weak here. Russia has in effect ceded western Ukraine to the
U.S.-bloc. Now it is trying to maintain a vitally strategic naval
base. It's the hyper-aggressive U.S. that is demanding every inch of
Ukrainian soil for itself, against the will of half the population
(while Obama and the entire chorus of western politicians and
propagandists falsely proclaim the fight is between “the Ukrainian
people” and Russian “aggressors.”

Ask any American political scientist in
the field of “international relations,” whether it is realistic
to expect Russia to cede such a vital strategic interest as access to
the sea. The U.S. won't even clear out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which
it has no need for and where Cuba has made clear for over half
a century the U.S. “presence” (occupation, in point of fact) is
not wanted.

It's not a “crisis” if the Ukraine
divides in two. The only “crisis” is ENTIRELY a U.S. creation,
since the U.S. won't accept a Russian presence outside its own
borders, except to fall in line behind the U.S. to gang up on Iran,
say, or otherwise act as a U.S. vassal state, as the U.S.' European
lapdogs do. It takes the kind of monumental gall that only the U.S.
seems to possess, to destabilize the Ukraine, as the U.S. and its
Eurostooges did, and then to loudly denounce Russia for
“destabilizing” it, and for “interfering” in the Ukraine's
internal affairs! I would submit to you that Russia has a far more
pressing interest in Ukraine than does the U.S., which is thousands
of miles away. Ukraine is on Russia's borders and hosts a vital
Russian naval base. Yet Russia hasn't declared a “Monroe Doctrine,”
as the U.S. did almost two centuries ago, claiming the entire Western
Hemisphere as its exclusive property (“our backyard”). But
apparently the fundamental foreign policy principle of the U.S. is-
What's Mine Is Mine, What's Yours Is Mine Too.

Update: Kerry is threatening Russia if
the secession referendum isn't cancelled. And German chancellor
Angela Merkel has been yapping at Russia. Apparently she's forgotten
all about how the NSA tapped her cellphone. And Obama never
even apologized!

1] In case you were wondering,
against the U.S.' 750 bases on other people's lands, the
Russians have- count 'em- two. The one in Crimea, and a naval
base in Syria. Which they'd have a hard time getting to if the U.S.
succeeds in kicking them out of the Crimea.

Oh, and speaking of “occupations,”
the people of Okinawa positively despise the U.S. military
occupation of their small island, which the U.S. invaded
and conquered in World War Two, slaughtering an
estimated 100,000 Okinawan civilians in the process. They especially
don't like the constant rapes committed by U.S. Marines and sailors.
And roaring jets flying low right over the main city every day. Gets
annoying. But hey, Russia has to respect the will of “the Ukrainian
people!” So says the U.S.! And that's an order!

2] Here's an interesting semantical
tally. In his self-righteous pronouncement, Obama used the word
“violate” or “violation” three times, “respect” or its
variations three times, “people,” referring to the Ukrainians,
three times, plus a reference to “all Ukrainians.” “Rights”
pops up twice. The word “international” appears FIVE times. And
naturally the words “sovereignty,” “integrity,” “reaffirm,”
“support,” “firm,” “commitment,” “allies,” and
“democracy” trot across the stage. A word processing program
could have written the speech for him. For all I know, one did. U.S.
imperialist rhetoric at this stage of history is a grab bag of trite
cliches and bogus hot air, intended to send signals rather than
impart meaning.

Here's the Ukraine, with the Crimea peninsula, site of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. From there, Russian ships can sail through the Dardanelles (straits that pass through Turkey) into the Mediterranean Sea and from there to the Atlantic Ocean, or through the Suez canal to the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and east Pacific.

Here you see the limits of Russian access to the sea. Its northern border is inside the Arctic Circle and is icebound much of the year- although global warming is gradually increasing the passable days. It has access to the Pacific on its far eastern coastline. Ukraine is on the left side, between and below the words "Europe" and "Moscow" on the map.

Here's a larger area view of Asia. You can see how cutting off Russian access to the Black Sea would add many thousands of miles of sea distance to the oil-rich Persian Gulf region for Russian ships.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the
anti-war activist group Code Pink, was on her way to participate in a
solidarity action for Palestinian women imprisoned in the Gaza Strip
when she was seized at the Cairo airport, held overnight, assaulted
by secret police goons who broke her arm, tore her ligaments, and
dislocated her shoulder, and then deported her to Turkey. During her
over 14 hours as a captive, the U.S. embassy was called repeatedly to
come and assist her, as is their putative duty, to aid a U.S. citizen
in distress, and they never showed up, including after the vicious
assault on her, which they were also informed about. I suppose the
State Department apparatchiks were high-fiveing each other in their
lair. This refusal to intervene constituted a thumbs-up to the
Egyptian regime, which has long employed its torture skills to
prisoners delivered to them by the U.S.

Last year (May 2013) Medea Benjamin
committed the grave offense of interrupting a mendacious speech by
Obama to confront him about some of his murderous policies. One
question she shouted as she was being dragged from the room by
Obama's Praetorian Guard was about the “killing” as she politely
put it (murder is the correct word- and remember, Obama personally
approves each name on the death list) of the 16 year old son of
“terrorist” Anwar al-Awlaki, who was blown apart by a drone-fired
Hellfire missile in a cafe in Yemen along with some of his cousins.
She also shouted questions about various similar U.S. atrocities.
Well you don't insult the Emperor like that and get away with it
scot-free. [1]

So here's a concrete example of how
Egypt “supports” the U.S. Mutual persecution of each other's
dissidents is one way repressive regimes “support” one another
and “protect” the “interests” of the each other.

There's no reason to think that the
Egyptian secret police would have undertaken this assault on their
own, or would be aware of Benjamin's travel plans, or even who she
was, without the U.S. telling them.

The U.S. tracks the travel of
dissidents (“terrorists” in U.S. government lingo) in advance,
since any time a dissident books a plane reservation a computer alert
immediately brings it to the attention of a secret police monitor.
There were a hundred women participating in the solidarity action
including Benjamin. Yet the Egyptian state thugs singled her out for
seizure and mauling. The totality of the circumstances point to
Obama's guilt.

Another strike against Benjamin was
showing support for Palestinians, Anything that merely draws
attention to the plight of Palestinians is considered an “attack”
on Israel. The U.S. is Israel's rottweiler. When Israel murdered
American Rachel Corrie, who stood in front of a U.S.-made bulldozer
to try and stop the demolition of yet another Palestinian home, the
U.S. was fine with that. As in the murder of 34 American sailors and
the wounding of 174 in the 1967 Israeli attempt to sink the U.S.S.
Liberty (a Navy spy ship) in a two-hour jet and torpedo boat
attack, the murder of Corrie was called an “accident” by Israel,
and the U.S. government said OK. Loyalty is a one-way street with our
rulers. Citizens and soldiers are supposed to be loyal to them, but
they owe us nothing. [2]

So Obama has an Egyptian goon squad do
yet another favor for the U.S. imperialist government. Meanwhile the
American media is keen to remind us almost daily that Putin is a
“thug.” Which I don't dispute. It just gets annoying to
constantly hear the pot calling the kettle black.

But the State Department has done worse
than what they did to Benjamin. The movie Missing portrayed
their complicity with the Pinochet junta of Chile in the murder of
American Charles Horman, and their protection of the Pinochet regime,
for example. So what's a broken arm? (The U.S. military had the junta
murder Horman and another American, Frank Teruggi,
because of their presumed political sympathies. At least 3
Americans are known to have been murdered by the fascist junta
installed by the U.S., a well as citizens of other nations,
especially Spaniards. For that matter, Kissinger gave the go-ahead to
Pinochet's overseas assassination program, which included murdering
Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C., by car bomb.)

So I guess you could say Benjamin “got
off easy.” She wasn't murdered, like Michael Hastings was, for
“sticking his nose where it had no business being,” in the
gangsters' lingo. Or like the FBI execution of Ibragim Todashev in
his apartment after hours of questioning. [3]

So what's a broken arm? Hell, they blow
up grandmothers with drones! All in a day's work, for a repressive
global empire that daily degenerates further into barbarism.

3] And this was
at least the fifth day of interrogation of Todashev. A series of
preposterous stories was then planted in the media by unnamed FBI
agents aka “law enforcement sources.” The initial story
was this vague line, anonymously sourced of course, which appeared on
ABC “News;” “There was some sort of aggressive movement that
led the FBI agent to believe he was under threat and he opened fire.”
This version omitted the facts that the room was full of cops and FBI
agents, and that Todashev was recovering from knee surgery at the
time on which he could only hobble around. It also left out what we
later discovered from autopsy photos smuggled out to Todashev's
father- that he was shot 6 times, including in the top of his head.
The U.S. media blacked out the father's press conference at which he
displayed the photos. Todashev was obviously executed either as he
was seated in his chair or on the floor.

Todashev knew the
Boston Marathon Bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers. All three were
Chechen immigrants in the U.S. During his interrogation by the FBI,
they apparently discovered that he knew something they didn't want to
get out, and so they silenced him. We know that the FBI was alerted
to the Tsarnaevs by the Russians well before the bombings, yet they
pretended to look the other way. At the least, it smells like another
9/11, where the secret police deliberately allow a terrorist outrage
to occur in order to seize more power for themselves.

Or worse- that the FBI helped instigate
the bombings.

The Tsarnaevs apparently went on jihadi
websites to get instructions on making the pressure cooker bombs they
constructed. Given that NSA, CIA, and FBI monitor jihadi websites and
plant spyware on the computers of anyone who views those websites, it
really stretches credulity to claim that the Tsarnaevs somehow “flew
under the radar.” And it is a matter of public record, reported by
the bourgeois media, that the Russians WARNED the FBI about the
Tsarnaevs well in advance of the bombings. The absurd excuse that the
Russians didn't give the FBI specific enough information is absurd.
As someone who has been under surveillance (and persecution) for
decades for having opinions that the reactionaries of the secret
police hate, I find it darkly humorous for the FBI to claim they blew
off monitoring people identified as terrorists because there wasn't
specific enough information!

But the corporate propaganda system
repeats this insulting (to the intelligence of any thinking person)
nonsense uncritically and moves on. Thus do they aid and abet the
crimes of the FBI. As indeed they do in covering up the FBI's
murders. The FBI knows they can count on this media complicity, which
is why their crimes get increasingly brazen.

Saturday, March 01, 2014

“The United States would condemn any
attempt [by Russia, it's understood] to undermine Ukraine's
sovereignty.”

How's that for gall? This from the
nation that just overthrew the elected president and installed its
own handpicked replacements. That's not intervention? But maybe only
the U.S. is allowed to “intervene” (meddle in the internal
affairs of other nations), and those doing so with U.S. permission.
Well, when you're Boss of the World, I guess it's only natural to see
things that way.

Powers called for an “urgent”
UN “mediation” committee to be set up, to try and cement the U.S.'
precarious victory and keep the Crimea in Ukraine (which would give
the U.S. puppet regime official control over the Russian naval base
there) instead of splitting off. At the same time, Obama threatened
to be a no-show at the next G-8 Big Shots' Preening gathering, to be
held in Moscow, if Putin doesn't roll over and play dead in response to the U.S. seizure of Ukraine. Just a hunch, but I don't think Putin will want to trade Russia's
Crimean naval base just to have Obama drop by for a photo-op. (No doubt the omnipresent neofascist chorus of U.S. right-wing politicians, ex-apparatchiks, "think" tank pseudo-scholars and professional opinionators will soon be out in force to denounce Obama for weakness and demand he get tough with Russia. As usual, these imperialist zealots will have no practical options to offer, just fulminations.)

As soon as the U.S. installed its
puppet government, high State Department apparatchik William Burns
hied to Kiev to “consult” with the newest U.S. clients/satraps.
(I.e. to pull their strings.)

The U.S. now keeps threatening Russia-
You better not intervene militarily! [2] (Or else what, I
wonder?) At the same time, they're struggling to keep their newly
filched prize from crumbling like a stale cookie in their greedy
fingers. Ukraine seems likely to split in two, between the part “the
West” just grabbed, (on the pretext that Yanukovych, the elected
president their mob just overthrew, failed to sign a trade deal!
There's the first rule of “international relations,” as imposed
by the U.S.: do what we say, or else!) and the Russian-leaning
eastern section. The population is genuinely split, it would seem,
with easterners tied economically, culturally, linguistically to
Russia, and the coupsters with dollar signs (or Euro signs, actually)
in their eyes, thinking the West is a giant welfare state that will
put them on Easy Street. (Those fools will soon learn. The World Bank
is already hovering in the wings with its usual austerity demands to
pay off debt.)

Oh, and Russia just raised the issue of
Ukraine's arrears on paying for the discounted natural gas it gets
from Russia. Russia is threatening to raise the price. We've seen
this before. The West thinks Russia should give away free gas, and
regards it as the worst kind of extortionist imperialist bullying if
Russia wants to be paid for its product. Maybe the Russians should
take a leaf from U.S. history and send in troops to collect the debt,
as the U.S. repeatedly invaded Caribbean nations with Marines to act
as collection agents.

Quick Quiz: What's the difference
between a “democracy protester” and a “gunman”? Answer: the
first are backed by the West, the second are not. “Pro-Russian
gunmen” seized the Crimean parliament, the BBC “news”
reiterated again March 1st. And more threats of
“consequences” if Russia intervenes militarily. And here's an
example of “objective journalism,” courtesy of the New York
Times, the self-anointed “newspaper of record” of the U.S.
(and presumably of the world), the top of page one headline and
subhead on February 28th: “GRAB FOR POWER IN CRIMEA
RAISES SECESSION THREAT” “Pro-Russia Militants Overrun Buildings
as the Rift in Ukraine Deepens.” Say, didn't a Western-backed
violent mob led by fascists “overrun” government buildings and
“grab power” in Kiev, overthrowing the elected
government? And isn't that violent seizure of power exactly what led
directly to the current secession “threat”? Just asking.

And now, after destabilizing Ukraine,
the U.S. and its Euro-lackeys are busy blaming Russia for the mess.
Cute. I don't care for Russia. It's a repressive, autocratic,
backward nation. But blaming them for what the West just did in
Ukraine makes as much sense as blaming Russia for the global
financial crisis the U.S. created in 2008, for example. It's absurd.

Prying Ukraine away from Russia's
sphere of influence would mean threatening the Russian navy's base in
the Crimea, the southern peninsula of Ukraine that juts into the
Black Sea. The Black Sea provides Russia with access to the
Mediterranean via the Dardanelles. From the Mediterranean the
Russians can sail to the Atlantic Ocean, or through the Suez Canal to
the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean. Thus depriving Russia of
access to this sea route would be a partial strategic blockade of
Russia. It's incredibly aggressive of the U.S. and its Eurolackeys to
attempt this- not to mention hostile. Yet at the same time the U.S.
expects Russia to fall in line behind U.S. goals such as forcing Iran
to abandon its nuclear enrichment program and kill the Arak reactor.

The propaganda drumbeat is growing
louder by the day, with the U.S. media and much of European
establishment media shrilly accusing Russia of meddling,
destabilizing, intervening...all the things the West is doing in
Ukraine. The BBC has been particularly sleazy, constantly speculating
that the eastern Ukrainians who seized the Crimean parliament and
refused to accept the coup in Kiev of being Russian soldiers in
disguise. “The West” regards it as a “crisis” that Russia
would use troops to protect its naval base and other interests in the
Crimea. Just as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the “crisis” is
entirely of the U.S.' making, with its unreasonable, hyper-aggressive
demands. (Cuba had every right, as a sovereign nation, to invite the
Soviet Union to station nuclear-armed missiles there to deter U.S.
invasion. And the U.S. had long had nuclear weapons in Turkey and
Europe and in the Far East aimed at the Soviet Union at that time,
making it hypocritical as well as unreasonable to demand that the
missiles be withdrawn, on threat of a nuclear war.)

This is a good time to deconstruct that
word, “stability,” and its uses in U.S. Imperialist-Speak.
“Stability” is invoked, always as a Good Thing, when the U.S.
wants to keep some dictatorship or oligarchy in power. “Instability,”
a Bad Thing, means unwanted changes in the political status quo. But
as we see in Ukraine, the U.S. is fine with destabilizing
things to get what it wants. Stability becomes a virtue only after
the U.S. has the set-up it seeks. Then “instability” becomes a
bad thing. So destabilizing and destroying democratic systems in Iran
(1953), Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1965), Chile (1973), etc., were
Good Things. (They called it “fighting communism,” but that's
just fascist code for destroying democracy, human rights, labor
rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and so on.)

1] As part of the U.S.'
never-ending “human rights” burlesque, Powers wrote a
hand-wringing book about the Rwandan genocide that rued the fact that
the U.S. didn't intervene to stop it. Based on that credential,
Powers is put forth as a moral avatar. We've seen acts like this many
times before. Jimmy Carter's entire presidency was in part a “human
rights” charade. His actual record: forming the contra
terrorists who helped the U.S. wreck Nicaragua; initiating the U.S.
arms pipeline to Afghan jihadists after the Soviet invasion;
conniving with China to invade Vietnam (he also opined that the U.S.
didn't owe Vietnam anything for destroying that country, because “the
destruction was mutual,” by which I guess he meant the U.S. bombed
Vietnam, and the Vietnamese shot down some of the U.S.' bombers);
praising the Shah of Iran, one of the worst dictators on earth at the
time (as per Amnesty International) as a great friend; the
standard U.S. support for Israel's crushing of the Palestinians (now,
decades later, he's a critic of Israel- too bad he didn't say- and
DO- anything when it would have made a difference); and more.

2] By the way, there are large
numbers of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. When Reagan invaded Grenada to
topple a regime there that was anathema to U.S. reactionaries, the
excuse used was a bogus threat to the safety of American third-rate
medical students there (who couldn't get into med school anywhere
else, apparently). So it seems that Russia as ample VALID concern for
a military incursion in Ukraine!

But of course the usual hypocritical
double-standard applies, so Russia will be vociferously denounced by
the West if it does so.